Obscenity In Henry Miller's Tropic Of Cancer

Henry Miller’s novel Tropic of Cancer explores the nomadic, Bohemian lifestyle prominent amongst the artistic community in 1930s Paris; Miller writes as himself, a struggling American, describing without restraint the sexually explicit and distasteful detail of his experiences while living within this poverty-ridden community. The novel was first published in the United States in 1961, and soon became a catalyst for a slew of trials discussing the ethics of publishing a book that could be labeled “obscene” under the First Amendment. Twenty-one US Supreme courts attempted to ban the book on grounds of obscenity, including Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Musmanno who called the novel: “not a book…a pit of putrefaction, a slimy gathering

of all that is rotten in the debris of human depravity.” However, other prominent authors and critics such as Samuel Beckett called the novel: “a momentous event in the history of modern writing” for its unprecedented honesty. Despite these opposing arguments, the ultimate question of this debate becomes: should an author be forced to censor his or her material for “offensive” elements, and more importantly, should a government entity be able to define what is “obscene” and dictate what its citizens have the ability to read? It is for this reason that, despite the presence or absence of literary merit within a work of literature, Tropic of Cancer, and other novels of similar nature, should not be banned. Citizens should be able to read and determine for themselves whether or not a work of literature possesses literary merit without the interference of government control, preventing not only government control on free speech, but also freedom of thought.
As stated by the Law and Legal Institute, obscenity, prior to the landmark Miller v. California case for Tropic of Cancer in 1973, was defined by a set of multiple criteria, some of the most notable including: “community standards of acceptability were to be used to measure obscenity, works whose predominant theme was questionable were the only target of obscenity law, and an obscene work was one that aimed to excite individuals’ prurient interest” (“Obscenity”). Particularly notable is that “community standards of acceptability” were used to define the obscenity of a novel; the primary determining factor of literary merit in any work of literature was a societal moral code, not a set government standard. This code, for most of the country, was set by The Bible, which included a strict set of Judeo-Christian values engrained within America; for authors, if a passage appealed to any sense of overt sexuality, it was often immediately challenged for banning. Imagine, then, the reaction to Henry Miller’s novel, whose first page describes his lice infestation and fifth page describes an overt, explicit sexual fantasy of a woman. The novel was published in 1961, at the height of America’s entanglement with Vietnam, the hippie movement, an extreme deviation from the conservative values of the 1950’s, and an overt sexual revolution. Miller’s existential philosophy, to “live for now” was fuel for this movement, and terrified America’s older generations. Women all over the country were appalled by its depiction of women as sexual objects. Many people were generally appalled merely by the use of explicit language prevalent throughout the entirety of the novel.
Tropic of Cancer is indeed primarily characterized by a prevalence of obscene language, overt sexual conduct, and a documentation of every distasteful and overly specific detail within Miller’s mind.

The novel does, however, possess literary merit in its exposure of people who descend to animalistic tendencies, and the subsequent negative consequences that follow. Miller specifically states at the beginning of the novel his refusal to remove any part of his book, that he will expose his mind and society completely and with total honesty. It is not meant to be a book Miller says: “but a libel, slander, defamation of character” (Miller). Its intent is to expose the realities and philosophies prevalent within this era in history, to reveal real people’s thoughts and motivations. James C.L. Brown, a literary critic and college professor in “Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer in the College Curriculum of One Happy Teacher” solidifies this in his commentary of the significance of the novel: “Tropic of Cancer [is] a perfect representation of how heterosexual men really think… everything they think about women is colored by the filter of their preoccupation with women as sexual targets” (Brown). Because of this honest representation of thought, and the description of male and female characters’ behaviors within the novel, readers are exposed to the actual thoughts and motivations of these characters, and are presented an opportunity to dispute the moral grounds of those actions when

reading the novel. If anything, the descriptions of these acts actually seem to deter the reader from partaking in such activities. These characters are people who will spend their last bits of money on brothels, who prioritize alcohol and a good time more than their own hygiene, even their own humanity: “Everywhere I go people are making a mess of their lives. Everyone has a private tragedy. It’s in the blood now—misfortune, ennui, grief, suicide. The atmosphere is saturated with disaster, frustration, futility.” They live by an existentialist philosophy, Miller even states: “do anything, but let it produce joy. Do anything, but let it yield ecstasy.” In reality, though, he is one of these poverty-stricken people withering away from hunger and disease as a result of this “do anything” philosophy, and thus Miller actually deters his readers from this type of behavior.
Several state governments attempted to ban this book for its offensive qualities, however, the book does not command or suggest any of the behavior described in the book, it merely provides a glimpse into the life and philosophy of the Bohemian culture within 1930’s Paris.

There were many instances while reading the novel that I found myself disgusted by the overt sexual description and explicit language, however, is one opinion, or even the opinions of a few interest groups and a government entity enough to declare the book unreadable for all of society? Not all Americans may find the book offensive or unenlightening, and may instead find some truth or new insight into the human condition. Particularly, the effects of a prioritization of primal desires: hunger, sex, and other addictions, which according to Miller’s description of himself and the other characters in the novel, causes a degeneration of character. This is supported in “Making a Place for Henry Miller in the American Classroom” in which Karl Orend asserts Miller’s original purpose for the sexual description: “its intent was, Miller said, to awaken people from a form of spiritual death created by the demands of modern urban society. Sex without love was ultimately a failure, and its depiction was intended to be condemned in his work. Miller said he abhorred pornography.” However, Miller partakes in the majority of these acts within the novel, which he states he condemns, and documents them in great detail. It is

for this reason that readers of the novel should determine whether or not it possesses these truths rather than a government entity; anyone with the maturity to process such description should have the ability to question or dispute the moral issues discussed in the novel. As Orwell states in his essay “Inside the Whale” regarding offensive elements in literature: “either one is shocked and disgusted… morbidly thrilled, or determined above all else not to be impressed…It is rather the fashion to say that nothing is easier than to write that an obscene book, that people only do it in order to get themselves talked about and make money,” and that Miller possesses “a willingness to mention the inane, squalid facts of everyday life.” Through these assertions, Orwell characterizes the primary opposition against the novel. It is “rather the fashion” to state that a work of literature is obscene for its content before even reading the work and attempting to interpret it. If nothing else, Miller does provide an in-depth exploration of the aspects of society often glossed over within literature, and the reality of 1930’s Paris, which “were years of bonanza and partying, of happy thoughtlessness and splendid creativity” (Vargas).
Despite Tropic of Cancer’s vulgar and offensive description and language, the novel does indeed provide an honest, accurate glimpse into the era of 1930’s Paris, in which Miller reveals the crude lifestyle of the Bohemian culture, and the subsequent disease, poverty, and misery rampant within Paris as a result of this lifestyle. This novel has the capacity to provide insight into the ideals of these types of people, and sets the stage for an opportunity to discuss the morality of these behaviors. Bans of this novel were eventually overturned after the Miller v. California case, which ruled that freedom of speech and press supersedes an opinion of obscenity, and established more strict criteria for a book to be labeled “obscene.” However, citizens should not be forced to read this book, as not all people possess the intellect to interpret the mature material, but it should not be banned, particularly because of its representation of a period of history, and most importantly, without this representation: “American students are left with a distorted picture of their rich and diverse literary and social history…[without] an understanding of America's interaction with the wider world, and a sense of the course of intellectual history leads to an education that is unable to explain the very foundations of American culture” (Orend).